Poll The Beatles or Harrison?

[Moist_Cake]

I was born mid 70's. So growing up listening to The Beatles, George, Paul, Wings etc was just a part of life. They were just there. And always there because of their popularity.

Admittedly, I would mistake Paul's and George's stuff as being The Beatles.

After watching Get Back, I got the impression that George may have had something to do with them breaking up. He mentioned wanting to do his own thing, and it seemed John wasn't impressed. And right after they broke up, George released that amazing triple album.

So in my opinion, the break up was worth it because I think George on his own, is better than the group altogether.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think John just has much stronger stuff than George. They should have let George have more songs on the albums, and While My Guitar Gently Weeps is among Beatles best. But other than a few singles and his Ravi Shankar collaborations his solo stuff isn’t that impressive.

 

[Owain Taggart]

So in my opinion, the break up was worth it because I think George on his own, is better than the group altogether.

I think sometimes circumstances can be beneficial. Maybe the breakup would have happened either way, if not then, maybe further down the road. But I've observed a similar thing with Steven Page of the Barenaked Ladies after he got kicked out of the band. It's easy to see that he felt stifled creatively, because his solo material he release right after felt rejuvenated, both in his musicality and his writing, and ironically the band that continues on without him just doesn't feel as interesting, like they're painting by numbers.

You know, with George, I think it helped that he joined up to form the Traveling Wilburys, but shame we never got a followup after his death.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The sum of even great parts is still better than the parts.

John and Paul were the better writers, George was the better player and Ringo is......Ringo That takes nothing away from George's talent as a writer in his own right....right?

Dhani is the spitting image of dad.

 

[StarCruiser]

Classic case of "don't make me choose"... I can't - they were all good in their own way and together.

 

[tomalak301]

I said The Beatles, but I remember watching a special CBS aired a few years ago and one of the segments was Ringo as a solo artist. I actually found him highly entertaining.

 

[Starbreaker]

The Beatles. Nobody has a catalogue like that.

 

[think]

Lennon.. Everything he did.. Harrison is great..

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The Beatles. Nobody has a catalogue like that.

IDK, maybe Plant/Page and Jagger/Richards? Obv the Stones have had a lot more time than the Beatles & Zeppelin.

 

[Pikirk_Janesisko]

I don't think it was really worth it, but they broke up at the exact right time. George was the one with the most potential but after 1973 his career took a bit of a nose dive commercially. Meanwhile, Paul was starting to make his most succesful work with Wings. Ringo did his best album that year and John's Mind Games was ok. I like their albums solo, but they are hardly Beatles material.

 

[Oddish]

...and Ringo is......Ringo

He was pretty good at narrating "Thomas the Tank Engine" shorts.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

He was pretty good at narrating "Thomas the Tank Engine" shorts.

He really was. I'm always reminded of the line from the Red Dwarf Parallel Universe tho.

HOLLY: "Well, for instance, in this universe, it could be that Hitler won the Second World War. It could be something even more incredible, like perhaps Ringo was a really good drummer."

 

[Starbreaker]

IDK, maybe Plant/Page and Jagger/Richards? Obv the Stones have had a lot more time than the Beatles & Zeppelin.

I do love the Rolling Stones, but a lot of their stuff from the synthesizer era and beyond is uh... not good, in my opinion.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I do love the Rolling Stones, but a lot of their stuff from the synthesizer era and beyond is uh... not good, in my opinion.

Their work from the 60's and 70's alone comes pretty close or matches up pretty well. The Beatles were just epic on so many levels and didn't really have a later career "down" period like longer lasting bands.

 

[StarCruiser]

Yep - Stone's in the 60's to mid-70's were very good but yep...kinda fell down later.

Some classic bands adapted to the synth era better than others. The Who were still good right into the 80's.

 

[XCV330]

I liked a few of Harrison's solo songs. Then again I have never been the world's biggest Beatle's fan. Getting into the Beatles seems like some kind of undertaking you have to prepare for, now. It's like being a railfan, or being into jazz. You might have to know all about it before you can dare to venture an opinion.

I will say Ringo was one of the best rock drummers from his era. Looking at what happened to other bands that did not know when to close shop, the Beatles probably ended at the right time. The pop music world was about to change greatly.

"Phony Beatlemania has bitten the Dust" -The Clash

I was glad the remaining three did not try to have a reunion without Lennon. By that point I think Jeff Lynne had wormed his way into everything. I don't like Jeff Lynne. It's not fair. He's probably a decent person. But I don't like his music. I hate how everything he produces is identifiable as Jeff Lynne, because then it sounds like Jeff Lynne and I really don't like Jeff Lynne. At all. He's probably a Trekker and reading this, and I should be sorry, but such is my dislike for Jeff Lynne I lift my hands like a holy roller praising god at the thought. Where was I.

To answer the OP, I don't like Jeff Lynne. Also I really dig Harrison. The Radha Krsna Temple album was really important for me when I was going through a spiritual phase for a few months.

 

[Orphalesion]

I actually always preferred the solo works of the various ex-Beatles over their songs from when they were a band, George Harrison included. Dream Away is awesome, for example.
In comparison I don't rally have any Beatles song I would call a favourite song.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I don't like Jeff Lynne

RLY? The guy's a genius on so many levels along with Alan Parsons (who helped engineer 1 or 2 Beatles records IIRC). Writer, composer, producer, instrumentalist, singer, engineer. Very few people have ever come close to Jeff IMO.

The remaining Beatles thought enough of him to produce and/or mix those latter day "unearthed" songs.

 

[Mojochi]

Honestly, the farther you get away from it, it's clearer to me that John was the most inspired artist, especially lyrically, but his music composition is rather over simplistic, or maybe even a little unskilled. Paul was the most competent music composer, but his concepts were very pop, & not as deep. He did after all write what is now widely considered the most hated Christmas song ever lol

That's why Lennon/McCartney gravitated to making the best songwriting team, that complementing of one another

Ringo was the best personality, while going largley unrecognized for being a perfectly competent & enjoyable performer, & George was the best instrumentalist. He wrote some good stuff too, but I feel like his best compositions were directly inspired from being in the creative element The Beatles offered.

I'd actually say that about all of them. I think them all having such different areas of excellence meant they were a good mesh, that complemented each other, & also found a way to bolster each other in areas they each might not have been as good at as someone else. Once they were working apart, they no longer had that kind of counterbalance in their work. They drove each other to better their weak areas, & support their excellent ones

It's the same reason I'm grateful they also happened to have their friendly rivalry with Brian Wilson & The Beach Boys. The existence of that external adversary IMHO made both groups strive to achieve better & more inspired creations. So too with the internal dynamics of the Beatles.

 

[urbandefault]

They all had their strengths. Here's Ringo's finest Oscar bid.